My local 1 hour lab review

[canon_eos_rules]

Currently, I'm testing 1-hour photo labs in my town for my school's

newspaper. Here's the full article:

 

Does The Right Processing Make The Difference?

 

 

It�s the day after your very special party. You need your pictures

in time for school tomorrow so you can show them to your friends

during lunch. So, you head out in your new Ford Focus, drive to the

nearest one-hour photo shop, drop off your film, get a bite to eat,

come back, shop around the store, and then pick up your photos, only

to discover lousy prints. Sound familiar? Many of you often ponder

where to get your film developed. However, you�re bombarded with

slogans right and left, promises left and right, and marketing hype

like these slogans:

�Kodak quality, Kodak technicians, Kodak labs at Target.�

�Wal-Mart Photo Center. Always great pictures. Always low prices.

Always.�

�Walgreens: Where America takes its pictures.�

�Ask for Kodak.�

Does this sound like a matrix migraine to you? It won�t be after you

read this head-to-head test of 1-hour photo labs here!

 

How is it done?: One-hour processing is done on-site using a machine

called a minilab that develops the film using photographic

chemicals, scans the negatives, and then prints the negatives onto

a photographic paper such as Kodak Edge Generations or Fujicolor

Crystal Archive. After that, the pictures are inspected, reprinted

if necessary, and then given fresh to you!

 

Photo Q&A

 

Q: Why are you only testing one-hour processing?

 

A: We had to go with the flow and choose what students used, and

that was one-hour processing.

 

Q: Do any of the places you�ve tested develop digital camera

pictures?

 

A: Wal-Mart, Walgreens, & Target all develop digital camera prints

for around 29 cents per 4x6 print. Larger sizes (5x7, 8x10) are also

available.

 

Q: What film and camera did you use in these tests?

 

A: The camera used was a Canon EOS Elan 7E SLR with a Canon 28-90 mm

zoom lens and the film used was AGFA Vista 400 (also sold in

Walgreens stores as Walgreens Studio 35 400).

 

Q: Why doesn�t Kmart or CVS/pharmacy have a 1-hour photo here in

town?

 

A: Kmart was going to get a 1-hour photo in 1998, but Kodak (who was

going to supply the minilab) was experiencing financial troubles at

the time, so they didn�t put one in. The local CVS had a 1-hour

photo as recently as last year, but they got rid of it because it

was unprofitable for that particular store.

 

Q: Does photo paper make a difference?

 

A: Absolutely! I have found that Kodak films work best with Kodak

paper (Target uses it) and Fuji films work best with Fujicolor

Crystal Archive paper (Wal-Mart & Walgreens 1-hour use it). I chose

AGFA film for this test because it�s less picky about what paper

it�s printed on.

 

Q: Can you get black and white film done in 1 hour?

 

A: If it�s Kodak Black & White (in the black box-NOT to be confused

with Kodak TMax or Tri-X) or Ilford XP2 Super, sure! Otherwise,

check the black and white box on your photo envelope (the pictures

will be returned to you within 1-2 weeks).

 

Q: My pictures are very precious. What photo paper lasts longest?

 

A: Kodak EDGE Generations paper (used wherever you see �We use Kodak

paper�) lasts 100 years in direct light or 200 years in dark storage

(cabinet, photo album), while Fujicolor Crystal Archive paper (used

at Wal-Mart & Walgreens 1-hour photo) lasts 75 years or more in

direct light and up to 200 years in dark storage. Either one is a

safe bet.

 

Q: I need enlargements. Should I use the Kodak Picture Maker?

 

A: The Kodak Picture Maker gives great results, but the prints don�t

last as long as real photographic prints. Use it only if you want

results fast; otherwise, use the Fujifilm Aladdin Digital Photo

Center kiosks at Wal-Mart & both Walgreens locations to make better,

longer-lasting enlargements. Oh, and by the way, did I mention that

it costs one-fourth as much to make 8x10 enlargements on the Aladdin?

 

Q: Do store-brand films work well?

 

A: Walgreens Studio 35 & Polaroid High Definition films (both made

by AGFA) work great-in fact, it�s the only film I used for this

test! CVS Photostar film (made by Konica) should also do the trick

nicely, but stay away form Focal film (from Kmart) and Best Choice

film.

 

Q: Are Jazz disposable cameras any good? They cost half as much as

Kodak!

 

A: Jazz takes leftover Kodak & Fuji disposables, reloads them with

generic film (which can mean variable results), electrical-tapes

them back together (which may result in light leaks), and puts on a

pretty cover. Stick with Kodak, Fuji, Konica, AGFA, CVS Photostar,

or Walgreens Studio 35 disposables-you know they�re good.

 

Q: I love those Picture CDs! Can you get them in 1 hour now?

 

A: Why, yes you can! All of the places tested will burn you a

Picture CD along with your film or digital prints in 1 hour!

 

The Contenders:

 

Wal-Mart Photo Center

-Slogan: �Always great pictures. Always low prices. Always.�

 

-Open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week

 

-Paper used: Fujicolor Crystal Archive Type One (matte only)

 

-Digital camera prints: Yes (through Fujifilm Aladdin Digital Photo

Center)

 

-Kodak Picture Maker: Yes

 

-Prices: $5.57 for single 4x6 prints (35 mm or 110, 24 exp), add 96

cents for index print

 

-Note: Wal-Mart is the only place in town that develops 110 film in

1 hour.

 

Target Photo

 

-Slogan: �Kodak quality. Kodak technicians. Kodak labs at Target.�

 

-Open from 10 am to 7 pm Monday-Friday, 11 am-5 pm Saturday/Sunday

 

-Paper used: Kodak EDGE Generations (glossy, matte, or lustre)

 

-Digital camera prints: Yes (just hand your memory card or CD to the

clerk!)

 

-Kodak Picture Maker: Yes

 

-Prices: $5.99 for basic package (single 4x6 prints, 35 mm, 24 exp)

$7.49 for premium package (single 4x6 prints, index print & storage

box, 35 mm, 24 exp

 

Walgreens One-Hour Photo Centers

 

-Slogan: �Where America Takes Its Pictures.�

 

-Open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week (location A), 8 am to 10 pm 7

days a week (location B)

 

-Paper used: Fujicolor Crystal Archive Type One (glossy or matte)

 

-Digital camera prints: Yes (through Fujifilm Aladdin Digital Photo

Center at both locations)

 

-Kodak Picture Maker: Yes (at both locations)

 

-Prices: $6.99 for single prints (35 mm, 24 exp), add 99 cents for

index print

 

The Results:

 

Wal-Mart Photo Center: You may be thinking �How can a place that

charges only $5.57 for single prints do a good job?� They did very

well, thanks. According to our very own photo expert, the colors

were nicely saturated, the pictures were sharp (although one print

was blurry, however, it was probably a focusing problem), and the

price was right! They can also do digital camera prints, photo

gifts, enlargements, and more-even 1 hour prints from oldie-moldy

110 film! However, there�s some bad news for all you glossy paper

fans-Wal-Mart can only do matte finish. Still, these attributes give

the Wal-Mart Photo Center our Best Value award!

 

Target Photo: First, let�s break down their slogan: �Kodak quality,

Kodak technicians, Kodak labs at Target.�

�Kodak quality�- it was nonexistent! The colors were washed out and

the prints were not very crisp.

�Kodak technicians�-At least they were good. The service was quick,

prompt, & courteous, but that still didn�t compensate for the poor

quality prints.

�Kodak labs at Target�- I can�t argue this one-Kodak (and not

Target) actually owns Target�s photo labs.

True, they only charge $5.99 for single prints and they�re the only

lab in town that uses Kodak paper in glossy, matte, or lustre (all

the others use Fujicolor Crystal Archive paper). The moral of the

story: Avoid Target (recipient of our Worst Pictures award) unless

you�re developing Kodak film and want Kodak paper.

 

Walgreens One-Hour Photo Labs:(Note: This review is for location A.)

We saved the best (in our opinion) for last: Walgreens! Why did

Walgreens do the best? Here�s why:

-The colors had plenty of pop!

-The photos were extremely crisp & sharp!

-The people were very friendly & courteous!

-You can get glossy or matte paper!

Walgreens also offers photo gifts, enlargements, as well as digital

camera prints. However, they�re the most expensive of the bunch at

$6.99 for single prints, but if you want the very best pictures,

pick Walgreens, recipient of our Best Pictures award.

 

So Yes, It Is True: Yup, the right processing DOES make all the

difference when you want great pictures. In our tests, Walgreens did

the best job, Wal-Mart was the best value, while Target did the

worst job. So, next time you shoot that roll of Kodak MAX

Versatility Whatever, think about the School News and what they

thought when you get your film developed!

 

[les_de_moss1]

A lot of work, and a nice job! One thing bears mentioning... that every one-hour installation is a unique entity, staffed and run by a wide range of individuals with varying levels of knowledge and experience.

 

The quality of work from a Target lab in one town, has little bearing on that in another. And indeed from shift to shift and day to day, the quality of the work is subject to countless variations.

[Jerry_]

quote

 

 

The camera used was a Canon EOS Elan 7E SLR with a Canon 28-90 mm zoom lens and the film used was AGFA Vista 400 (also sold in Walgreens stores as Walgreens Studio 35 400).

 

 

end quote

 

 

Two out of three *problems* is not bad to expect good prints.

Your choice of film and the lens might lead the machine to print *less than you saw in the viewfinder* when you were out shooting.

 

 

 

Suggest Fuji Superia 400, and if you can find a 50mm lens -- then run your test roll through the lab. The results may surprise you.

[ashton]

<i>Q: My pictures are very precious. What photo paper lasts longest? <br><br>

A: Kodak EDGE Generations paper (used wherever you see �We use Kodak paper�) <b></i>is claimed to<i></b> last 100 years in direct light or 200 years in dark storage (cabinet, photo album), while Fujicolor Crystal Archive paper (used at Wal-Mart & Walgreens 1-hour photo) <b></i>is claimed to<i></b> last 75 years or more in direct light and up to 200 years in dark storage. Either one is a safe bet. </i><br><br>

 

It might also be good to compare the contrast and brightness/exposure of the prints. <br><br>

 

And re Gerald, Agfa Vista is not a problem, (and personally I find it consistantly more pleasing than Fuji Superia 400, except for a bit more grain).

And with 4x6 prints, there shouldn't be any significant problem with the cheap zoom.

[bloosqr]

Thanks for the review! I'll have to give walgreens a try locally. If you ever redo this i'd recommend trying a better lens and film as it may distinguish the top from the middle..

 

I've actually been thinking about this for a while since i'm trying to find out what the best performance/$ on printing is. At some point soon i'm going to buy a decent scanner (w/in the next month). What I am thinking of doing is taking say 10 of my "favorite" pictures that exemplifies what I think would make a good picture and then sending those off either online/cf card to each printing company. While it does introduce another factor i.e. digital/scan, I will have (1) negative prints to compare the results to (2) all the print shops will be using the same digital scan i.e. any degradation the print shops will see equally (but hopefully a very high res scan using a reasonable film scanner, this wont be too much of an issue)

 

 

 

-avi

[el_quinn]

I work in a one hour lab-have for about six years. I won't mention the

name because I am about to slander them a bit but it aptly rhymes with

BS. We are trained and certified, which isn't at all difficult to be.

You need to find a lab that the people working in it care about what

they are doing and don't care what management says. For example, we

just got a new digital machine and it can do all sorts of cool

corrections, cropping, switching to B&W, and guess what? The customers

complain (a few) that the one hour sign is false advertising-which for

us is it is because we are so busy. So the person in charge, I'll call

her Dilbert, who has never worked a day in a lab said stop reviewing

the pictures, do them on auto. Previewing wasn't slowing us down

anyway, it's the set-up. we have no sink for one thing. Also one

person is supposed to wait on customers, do passports, help everyone

with the KPM and the digital kiosk plus develop 120 rolls of fim a

day! It is NOT possible. Not previewing wastes time. They don't take

into consideration redos take four times as long...I used to manage a

lab for the same company but a different store. When I moved I asked

for part time after my transfer because it was a constant headache in

order to be able to do my job well. The people they made me train

weren't necessarily at all interested in photography or art, or even

their job. I personally will not deliver substandard prints. Also, the

techs are supposed to be PMing the machines, according to our stores

contract, and they NEVER do (not in any of the stores around where I

live, anyway). That's because they are understaffed and they have to

fight to do their jobs right, too. Most of the time they have to give

priority to down machines and usually the machines are down because

some nimrod poured bleach in the stabilizer so the good labs get no

maintenance.

[majid]

I would take Kodak's claims of durability with a grain (or better yet, a metric ton) of

salt. They are the same people who in the 1960s claimed color prints "last forever"

when they knew full well that Ektacolor would fade after about 15 years. Look at <a

href="http://www.wilhelm-research.com/book.html">this book</a> by Henry

Wilhelm for more details.

[steve_ql]

" I have found that Kodak films work best with Kodak paper (Target uses it) and Fuji films work best with Fujicolor Crystal

Archive paper (Wal-Mart & Walgreens 1-hour use it). I chose AGFA film for this test because it?s less picky about what paper it?s

printed on. "

 

Correction: Kodak film works well with Kodak paper, and Fuji

with Fuji paper in general for OPTICAL printing.

With digital printing, that isn't the case anymore. It's more

dependent on who's operating the Fuji Frontier or other digital

printer. And saying that Agfa film is less picky about the

paper is flat out wrong. With modern films, the film that

scans the best tends to look the best when printed, like Fuji

NPH or Kodak Portra UC (i.e. UC looks fine on a Frontier with

CA paper).

[r.t. dowling]

Not a bad article. Frankly, it was more accurate and more objective than most of the articles I've read in magazines such as Shutterbug or Popular Photography.

 

One minor suggestion: replace all those exclamation marks with periods. The article will look more professional. Journalists rarely, if ever, use exclamation marks.

[igsman]

Here is my recent experience with our Wal-Mart (Erie, PA). I brought my two rolls of Kodak Gold 100 film (one of my absolute favorite films) and a roll of Fuji Super HQ 200 to their Fuji Frontier 390 minilab). It was post-ceremony candid shots of bride & groom and co. on an overcast day in NH. So here are the results:

 

Kodak Gold 100: the prints were way too contrasty, way too warm (on one shot the faces looked like they had just come out of an oven, think Newman's hallucinations about Kramer being a roasted turkey; another picture had a plain red face), prints were inconsistent and ALL of them were artificially sharpened with whatever default setting the lab has. I would say the contrast and fake digital over-sharpened look are my biggest problems here. I scanned the negatives at home and, of course, easily pulled out all the details of the tuxedoes and the bride's dress.

 

 

Fuji Super HQ 200: the skin tones were much better this time, very good actually, and the contrast, while still on the strong side, was toned down a little, but the sharpening was still there!

 

 

I went back and asked to speak to the most knowledgeable guy there and we fiddled with one strip of the Kodak Gold for about an hour. He set the machine to turn off the sharpening, or, as he put it, that was the lowest sharpening there was (with slightly noticeable results), but he could not figure out a way to lower the contrast. So he promised to call Fuji and ask them about it.

 

 

I still have 4 rolls of NPH of the wedding ceremony itself, and I am not in a hurry to take it there, because of the above-mentioned problems. The only paper they use is type "1", whatever the hell amateur paper that is. Plus, I have read on photo.net about the proper paper for NPH, and type "1" has never even been mentioned.

 

 

At this point, I am so frustrated with this whole thing, first, I am hoping that maybe the Wal-Mart guy will figure out a way to lower the contrast on his Frontier 390, but then, if he doesn't succeed, I am just thinking, maybe I should be looking for a good old optical lab that will properly print my already sharp and well-exposed negatives. And about NPH? For right now, it's just sitting in my fridge till I find a better solution. It just kills me to pay over $20 per roll for our local pro-lab, which is also digital and where I might encounter the same problems!

 

 

If any of you guys have any ideas on this, it will be greatly appreciated by many, I am sure.

[kent_lee1]

I've been also testing out local labs in Minneapolis. Even though my local Wal-mart has a Fuji Frontier, I was throughly disappointed with its performance. I had a picture enlarged, it was a night time scene of the Kuala Lumpur skyline. When I got the photo back, the dark areas of the picture were not black (as they were on the original proof), but more like a dark green!

 

Went to the National Camera store, and had the exact same picture enlarged on their Agfa process. Picture was perfect, great contrast, and a true black color rather than the muddy green black. But I paid 3x more than Wal-mart for the enlargement.

 

I thought the Frontier was nearly foolproof, but to see these terrible colors from Wal-mart's Frontier makes me wonder

[canon_eos_rules]

Strange Man, Kodak Gold 100 & Fuji Frontiers with Crystal Archive paper don't mix!

[mark_uhde]

Good review, just one note - you're comparing apples to oranges. Fuji's standard for acceptable loss of the least stable image dye is way stricter than Kodak's.